Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1223 (PAT)

Bindeshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-11-01

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, B.N.SINGH

body2000
Judgment B.N.SINGH "NEELAM", J. 1. Both these criminal appeals detailed above so filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are heard together because of its arising out of the judgment so parsed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979 dated 30th of June, 1986, by virtue of which the learned IIIrd Additional sessions Judge, Arrah, has convicted Parasnath Singh the sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1986, tinder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting him under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he is directed as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The rest of the accused-appellants, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh (Mahton), Ram Niwas Singh and Kishun Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 but by going through the order-sheet dated 10.7.2000 of Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 it transpires that on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah dated 25.4.2000 reporting with regard to the death of one of the accused-appellants, i.e., Kishun Singh, taking place on 7.6.1987 as against him the present Criminal Appeal has abated. So there remains only three accused-appellants, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh and Ram Niwash Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 who stand convicted under Sections 302/149 of the IPC by the impugned judgment and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused-appellants Fagulal Singh and Bindeshwar Singh are convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. The rest got convicted under Sections 307/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. They are also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences so imposed on the persons figuring as appellants in both these criminal appeals are, however, directed as to run concurrently. 2. The rest got convicted under Sections 307/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. They are also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences so imposed on the persons figuring as appellants in both these criminal appeals are, however, directed as to run concurrently. 2. This will not be out of place to mention at the very outset that in course of trial of Sessions Case No. 43 of 1979, after examining of some of the witnesses, the learned Court below was pleased as to arraign three of the persons namely, Ekram Singh, Patel Singh and Bijay Singh as also to face the trial under East Cr C(2)3(HC) the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr PC such orders being passed on 29.11.1980 who were as it transpires separately tried vide Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1980 and those accused-persons arraigned under Section 319 of the Cr PC are also acquitted by the learned Court below being given the benefit of doubts. At present, thus, we are concerned with the judgment so passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979 in which the present accused-appellants of both Criminal Appeals taken up together figured as accused. Since both the Criminal Appeals in hand has cropped-up out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence so passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979, this common judgment will thus, govern and dispose of both the Criminal Appeals. 3. The prosecution case, put in narrow compass, as coming from the mouth of Chhedi (PW 16) is that in between 9.30-10 a.m. on 12.11.1976 in Mauza Birampur for getting water from the boring for the purpose of irrigating the agricultural land, he could see Dashrath Mahton (PW 12) having altercation with Fagulal Mahton one of the accused-appellants at that time, as per the prosecution, Pramod Mahton (PW 3) and others were taking their bath at the said boring. Because of the altercation so going on it took a bad shape and there was hot exchange of words between Dashrath Mahton and Fagulal Singh (Mahton) and other accused-persons also arrived at the scene equipped with firearms and started firing. Because of the altercation so going on it took a bad shape and there was hot exchange of words between Dashrath Mahton and Fagulal Singh (Mahton) and other accused-persons also arrived at the scene equipped with firearms and started firing. Accused- appellant, Bindeshwar Singh is first said to have fired at which was a blank fire hitting none and then the miscreants were seen running towards the guava tree located to the west of the house of accused Fagulal Mahton from where, as per the fardbeyan so given by the First Informant, Chhedi Ram (PW 6), so recorded on the same day at thirteen hours, being marked as Ext. 9; accused-appellants, Bindeshwar Singh and Parasnath Singh fired at as a result of which, as claimed, the informants sister Phulpatia Devi (PW 10) and his nice Kamli Devi (since deceased) sustained injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that when Jung Bahadur Mahton (PW 11) proceeded to rescue the ladies injured, he is also said to have been fired at by the accused-appellant Bindeshwar Singh. Bali Ram alias Bali Chamar (PW 9) who at that time had moved towards west from the Darwaza of the first informant is also claimed to have been injured because of the firing so resorted by the accused-persons. Because of the hue and cry being raised, as detailed in the fardbeyan, Raghurai Dusadh (not examined), Nanki Ram (not examined), Rameshwar Ram (PW 15) and others arrived who had, as claimed by the first informant, an occasion to see the occurrence. The four injured persons, namely, Fulpatia Devi, Kamli Devi, who is said to have been so injured at the time of occurrence, breathed her last on 16.11.1976 in the P.M.C.H.; Jung Bahadur Mahton (PW 11) and Bali Ram alias Bali Chamar (PW 9) were taken to Arrah Sadar Hospital and though there was indiscriminate firing so resorted by the miscreants figuring as accused but out of them accused Bindeshwar Singh and Parasnath Singh are said to have actively participated. The fardbeyan so given was recorded by SI, RN Tiwary, figuring as PW 23. The fardbeyan so given was recorded by SI, RN Tiwary, figuring as PW 23. On the basis of the FIR so given, it further transpires that Koilwer police case No. 5(11), 76 dated 12.11.1976 was so registered under Sections 147,148,149,307 & 324 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and because of Kamli Devi, who succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 of the IPC was so also added. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was so submitted and after taking the cognizance of the offence the case record got so committed to the Court of Sessions; charges were so framed-against the accused-appellants and in course of trial in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979, altogether twenty seven prosecution witnesses got examined. Three of the DWs are also examined in course of trial and the learned Court below after evaluating the evidence available on the record oral and documentary has, thus, convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced them thereunder detailed above which need not be repeated. 4. Having birds eye view of the evidence adduced in course of trial, it transpires that PWs 1, 4, 7, 17 to 20 & 25 are formal witnesses. PWs 12 & 14 are tendered. PWs 2, 3, 5; 6, 8-11, 15-18 are produced on the point of occurrence. PW 18 is the medical officer examining the injured. Ext. 3 is the details of the injuries so found on the person of Kamli Devi by PW 18. Ext. 3/1 relates to the injuries found on the person of Fulpatia Devi by the doctor (PW 18). Ext, 3/2 is the details of the injuries so found on the person of Bali Ram by the doctor examining him, namely, Dr. G.D.N. Singh (PW 18) & Ext. .3/3 is the details of injury so found on the person of Jang Bahadur Mahton by PW 18. PW 27 is the medical officer conducting post-mortem examination on the person of the deceased and the post-mortem report so prepared is duly proved by "him marked as Ext. 15, PW 26 is the police officer submitting the charge-sheet. The investigating officer of this case figures as PW 23, PW 24 is the Judicial Magistrate, who claims to have recorded the dying declaration of Kamli Devi (since deceased) duly marked as Ext. 13. Out of the DWs examined Dr. 15, PW 26 is the police officer submitting the charge-sheet. The investigating officer of this case figures as PW 23, PW 24 is the Judicial Magistrate, who claims to have recorded the dying declaration of Kamli Devi (since deceased) duly marked as Ext. 13. Out of the DWs examined Dr. Charurbhuj Prasad Singh (DW 1) has come forward to say of his examining Parasnath Singh one of the accused-appellants on 12.11.1976 and has given the details of the injuries so found on his person and the injury report so prepared by him is proved marked as Ext. D. DW 2 Gorakh Singh happens to be the assistant of the record room of the Arrah Collectorate, who has simply come forward to say relating to the record of one miscellaneous Case No. 479 of 1976 being destroyed certificate to that effect so given by the Deputy Collector-in-charge which is marked as Ext. E. DW 3 Pashupati Nath Upadhyaya, who has -proved Ext. F which is an application so given by one Jagdish Singh (since deceased) before the Collector, Bhojpur. This DW has also come forward to say with regard to one Ram Nagad Tiwary being the investigating officer of the counter-case, i.e., Koilwer PS Case No. 6 (11) of 1976 and has stated that para 51 of the same was in the hand writing of Ram Nagad Tiwary which was so marked for identification as X. In their statements under Section 313, Cr PC the accused-appellants have completely denied of committing any offence. The defence version, on the other hand, is that the members of the prosecution side of this case had rather committed overt acts as a result of which Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh one of the accused also sustained injuries and fardbeyan was also given by him (Ext. B) recorded at 1.30 p.m. on the same day and the case was so registered as Koilwer PS Case No. 6(11) of 1976 so registered under Sections 147, 336, 323 of the IPC & 27 of the Arms Act and in the present case the accused- appellants, as claimed, have been falsely implicated and that this case is nothing but the counter blast of the case so lodged by Paras Singh. 5. After evaluating the evidence available on the record oral and documentary the learned Court below has, thus, come to the conclusion that the. 5. After evaluating the evidence available on the record oral and documentary the learned Court below has, thus, come to the conclusion that the. prosecution in course of trial of S. Tr. No. 43 of 1979 had succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants under which they have been convicted, as detailed above, and after convicting them they are. sentenced to undergo imprisonments, as detailed at the foot of the judgment under challenge. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed is bad in law as well as on facts. It is further pointed out that the witnesses alleged to be eye witnesses, i.e., PWs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9-11, 15 & 16, can well be said to be interested and partition witnesses and they had strong motive as to falsely implicate the appellants in the present case. By referring to para 2 of PW 1 it is pointed out that this witness is specific in stating that there were two parallel parties so running in the village one comprising of Dusadhs and the other of the Mahtos and, it is because of this -village politics, that the appellants are falsely implicated. PW 3 at para 8, as submitted, has stated that one of the appellants Fagulal Singh has already instituted a criminal case for assault and loot of crops against PW 3, PWs 5,8 & 12 and likewise PW 8 at para 11 had also stated of his having litigation with accused Fagulal Singh. PW 13, the IO, namely, Kuddan Ram, was also inimical to the family of the appellants; that goes to show, as submitted, that good number of litigations were so pending between the Dusadhs and the Mahtos of the said village. In the counter-case so filed in which the first informant is accused-appellant Paras Singh, it is further pointed out that PWs 3, 5, 6,12 & 14 are shown as accused. The genesis of the occurrence of the present case, as submitted, could not be established by the prosecution and in the background of the same and the contradictory statements so coming from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses their testimony rather could not have been relied upon. The genesis of the occurrence of the present case, as submitted, could not be established by the prosecution and in the background of the same and the contradictory statements so coming from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses their testimony rather could not have been relied upon. As regards the dying declaration so proved said to have been given by Kamli Devi (since deceased) in support of which the Judicial Magistrate recording her statement so examined figuring as PW 24, it will transpire that the so-called dying declaration so proved and also being marked as Ext. 13 in course of trial is not signed by the person giving such declaration. No explanation also comes from the Judicial Magistrate regarding such declaration of Kamli Devi at that time being not in a position to sign and even the timing has also not been detailed and, in such circumstance, Ext. 13 on no account can be said to be believable and in support of his this contention on behalf of the appellants a reported case is so cited Cr LJ 1994 (sic) 617, State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Shishupal Singh. In this connection, it is submitted that convition can be safely piaced on a dying declaration provided it is free from infirmities but in a case in which the dying declaration was so recorded by the Magistrate which was not signed by the deceased and even no explanation coming with regard to deceased being not in a position to sign, such dying declaration creates doubt about its genuineness and it could hardly be sufficient as an unimpeachable document for safely basing the conviction of accused. By taking us to the situation and circumstance under which, as per the prosecution case, the lives of Fulpatia (PW 10), Bali Chamar (PW 9) and Jung Bahadur Mahton (PW 11) are said to have been attempted upon for which accused-appellants Fagulal Singh and Bindeshwar Singh are directly convicted under Section 307 and others except Paras Singh are convicted under Section 307/149, it is pointed out that by, particularly, looking to the sequence of events and the nature of injuries so sustained by PWs 9, 10 & 11 on no account it can be said that their lives were so attempted upon by some of the accused-appellants and that way too the conviction of the accused-appellants for attempting upon the lives of the persons injured can not be said to have been proved upto the hilt in course of trial and, hence, their conviction under Sections 307 & 307/149, as detailed in the impugned judgment, is also bad in law which requires interference. It is also pointed out that the presence of PWs 2 & 9 at the PO is belied by the evidence of 10 (PW 23) and, in this connection, reference is made to para 28 of his evidence. Furthermore, PWs 2 & 9 are not named in the FIR as witnesses to the alleged occurrence and this omission is very vital, since there was ample opportunity to the informant, though the names of all those, who had allegedly seen and present at the alleged place of occurrence, the name of PW 8, Girija Mahton, also does not find place in Ext. 9, the fardbeyan. The material prosecution witnesses so cited and examined, it is pointed out, have tried to make deliberate improvement in the prosecution case detailing specific overt acts committed by the accused-appellants and by looking into the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses cited as eye-witness it will transpire that there is variance in their statements as to who hit whom. The material prosecution witnesses so cited and examined, it is pointed out, have tried to make deliberate improvement in the prosecution case detailing specific overt acts committed by the accused-appellants and by looking into the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses cited as eye-witness it will transpire that there is variance in their statements as to who hit whom. By citing a reported case AIR 1984 SC 1716, Sushil Chowdhary and others V/s. State of Bihar, it has been pointed out that in a case when a particular accused was found only to be a member of the assembly chasing the deceased and no overt act is so attributed against him looking into the age of the accused after convicting him under Section 326 read with Section 149 and sentencing him of two years RI is also held to be not improper. In instant case, surprisingly enough, leaving aside Paras Singh, who has been convicted under Section 302, IPC, all other accused- appellants are also convicted under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and against some of them even the prosecution had not attributed of any overt act committed. In the background of the circumstances so shown also on the grounds in detail so taken in the memo of appeals so preferred, hence, the prayer is that it is a fit case in which the accused-appellants deserve acquittal. 7. Learned APP representing the State, on the other hand, has submitted that in instant case the eve-witnesses i.e., PWs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9-11, 15 & 16 are very specific with regard to the occurrence taking place as a result of which Kamli Devi, subsequently, breathed her last because of the injuries sustained Fuipatia Devi (PW 10), Bali Chamar (PW 9) and Jung Bahadur Singh (PW 11) were assaulted, reference is made to Ext. 3 series which are the injury reports on the person of the members of the prosecution side sustaining injuries and, in this connection, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us to the evidence of PW 18, the medical officer, examining those persons. PW 27 is the medical officer, namely, Dr. Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh, who had conducted post-mortem examination on he dead-body of Kamli Devi on 17.11.1976. He has given the details of the injuries so found on her person which need not be repeated. PW 27 is the medical officer, namely, Dr. Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh, who had conducted post-mortem examination on he dead-body of Kamli Devi on 17.11.1976. He has given the details of the injuries so found on her person which need not be repeated. Death has been caused as opined by the medical officer because of the shock and haemorrhage on account of the fire-arm injury so found on her person. Likewise, by referring to the evidence of PW 18, Dr. G.D.N. Singh, examining the injured it is pointed out that on 12.11.1976 when Kamli Devi (since deceased) was brought before him the patient was hospitalised and referred to P.M.C.H. same day as her condition was serious. As regards the injury on the person of Fulpatia Devi, the medical officer, has found two lacerated wounds on her right thigh, one being the wound of entry; another being the wound of exit. The injuries are said to have been caused by fire-arms simple in nature on the person of Bali Chamar, who was also examined same day by PW 18. He had found on his person multiple pellet mark injuries in the left leg, left thigh and upper portion of the left side of the abdomen. The injuries are opined to be simple in nature caused by firearms. As regards the injury on the person of Jung Bahadur Kushwaha, the medical officer had found pellet injuries on the left side of his chest and on the right arm caused by fire-arms. The injuries are opined to be simple in nature caused by firearms. As regards the injury on the person of Jung Bahadur Kushwaha, the medical officer had found pellet injuries on the left side of his chest and on the right arm caused by fire-arms. The nature of injuries being simple, in that background, it is submitted that since injuries were so found on the persons of PWs 9, 10 & 11 as being proved by PW 18, the medical officer, even these injured persons, who can be said to be the most competent witness of occurrence, and because of their sustaining injuries they can well be said to be present at the PO at the time of occurrence, their evidence is such which has fully supported the prosecution case and, thus, the learned Court below was perfectly justified in holding that the assembly of the accused-appellants rather was unlawful which was of more than five persons in which riot was so committed and, it is in furtherance of the common object of all, that the life of Kamli Devi (since deceased) was so attempted upon as a result of which she breathed her last and even if the person who hit Kamli Devi was accused-appellant Paras Singh (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 385/80) but the other accused-persons can very well be held of committing offence coming under the purview of Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. In support of his this contention on behalf of the State a reported case is so cited. The case so cited is AIR 1980 SC 957 , Bhe Ram V/s. State of Haryana. In the background of this reported case so cited it is pointed out that in a case of rioting under Section 149 it is not necessary that any specific overt act should be attributed. It is sufficient, if it is proved, that all the members of the unlawful assembly shared the common object of the said assembly which was, undoubtedly, to cause the murder of the deceased. It is sufficient, if it is proved, that all the members of the unlawful assembly shared the common object of the said assembly which was, undoubtedly, to cause the murder of the deceased. Therefore, any argument so made that against some of the accused in such cases no specific overt act was attributed except general statement that would not, in any way, help such accused-persons of not committing the offence coming under the purview of Section 149 of the IPC when the common object was so shared by all the members of the unlawful assembly and, in course of rioting, death of a particular person is so committed by one of them. It has also been submitted by the learned APP that as regards the counter case so filed from the accused-appellants side even after investigation final report was submitted and such case was so filed as just to save their skin. That being the position, it is submitted that other accused-appellants also being convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC in the present case on no account can be said to be unwarranted and, thus, they have rightly been convicted as they were also being convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned APP has also submitted that, since at the time of occurrence they were carrying fire-arms for the purpose indicated above, they have rightly been convicted also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced thereunder. Hence, the prayer is that there is nothing wrong in the impugned judgment under challenge and, since the criminal appeals so preferred have no leg to stand, they rather be dismissed. 8. After hearing both side lawyers, the evidence so available on the record oral and documentary are carefully locked into. Needless to say, that the evidence of PWs 9, 10 & 11 out of the other witnesses also so cited as eye-witnesses are of supreme importance because of PWs 9, 10 & 11 also sustaining injuries as proved by PW18, the medical officer and the injury reports being marked as Exts. 3/1,3/2 & 3/3 in course of trial. Needless to say, that the evidence of PWs 9, 10 & 11 out of the other witnesses also so cited as eye-witnesses are of supreme importance because of PWs 9, 10 & 11 also sustaining injuries as proved by PW18, the medical officer and the injury reports being marked as Exts. 3/1,3/2 & 3/3 in course of trial. By-going through the evidence of these injured persons figuring as PWs, who can well be said to be the most competent witnesses, and their presence at the PO, thus, can not be denied, it comes in light that they have fully supported the prosecution case, as detailed in the fardbeyan, with regard to the sequence of events taking place attributing overt acts against the accused-appellants, who had inflicted injuries on the members of the prosecution side, and Kamli Devi one of the persons, shot at by Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh, succumbed to the injuries and the act of his can well be said to be intentional as to cause the death of Kamli Devi which also finds support by going through the evidence of other prosecution witnesses cited as eye-witnesses. The medical officer conducting post-mortem examination on the person of the deceased has also opined that injuries so found caused by fire-arms were sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. It is not the case here that accused-appellant Paras Singh is so convicted in the present case under Section 302, IPC only on the basis of the dying declaration (Ext. 13); other witnesses claiming themselves to be eye-witnesses have also supported the prosecution version with regard to Paras Nath Singh firing at as a result of which of fatal injury was so sustained by Kamli Devi and, in such circumstance, even if not paying much importance to the dying declaration, in the background of the other overwhelming evidence so pouring in against accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh, there is no hesitation in holding that the sole accused-appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 385 of 1980 was so rightly convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life which does not require any interference. Appeal No. 385 of 1980 was so rightly convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life which does not require any interference. In this connection, also by going through the evidence of PW 2, Fagulal Singh at para 5, PW 3 at para 3, PW 5 at para 3, PW 6 at para 3, PW 8 at para 5, PW 9 at para 4, PW 11 at para 11, PW 15 at para 2 and PW 16 at para 5 it "transpires that in one voice they all have stated in course of trial with regard to accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh firing at Kamli Devi as a result of which, subsequently, she succumbed to the injures. 9. As regards the accused-appellants carrying fire-arm at the time of occurrence this fact has also been fully supported by the material prosecution witnesses and, in this context too, the evidence of PWs 2,3, 5, 6,8,9-11,15 & 16 are looked into. As regards the prosecution case with regard to the offences so committed in furtherance of the common object, that all the members of the unlawful assembly, who in course of rioting in furtherance of their common object did commit the murder of Kamli Devi, it is found that the learned APP has rightly submitted that, in the background of the facts and circumstances of other accused persons, except. Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh, who is directly convicted under Section 302, IPC can well be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC and the reported case so cited on this point is AIR 1980 SC 957 (supra) has rightly been relied upon on behalf of the State. In the instant case, it is found that the prosecution had proved that all the members of the unlawful assembly shared the common object which was to caused the murder of Kamli Devi and, therefore, it could make no difference if against some of the accused- appellants no specific overt act was so attributed of hitting the lady Kamli Devi. 10. 10. Now on the point with regard to Fagulal Singh and Bindeshwar Singh convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and the rest except Paras Singh convicted under Section 307/149, IPC by going through the evidence so made available, particularly, after going through the evidence of PW 18, the medical officer, examining Fulpatia Devi, Bali Chamar and Jung Bahadur Mahton figuring as PWs 9,10 & 11, their injury reports being marked as Exts. 3/1, 3/2 & 3/3; it transpires that all those fire-arm injuries so found on the persons of PWs 9, 10 & 11 are opined to be simple in nature. It has also not come in evidence that the fire so shot at was so repeated by the accused-persons even the vital part of the body is not hit except of one injury so found on the person of Jung Bahadur. That being the position, it has also to be seen as to whether the persons hitting at PWs 9, 10 & 11 had any intention as to cause their death? In the background of the facts and circumstances and also after going through the evidence so available on the record, it can, thus, safely be held that the accused-appellants, who are convicted under Section 307 and others under Section 307/149 except accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh, can not be said to have committed any offence/offences coming under the purview of Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC; utmost they can said to have committed an offence which is so proved in course of trial coming under the purview of Section 324 of the IPC. 11. Consequently, as regards the conviction of accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh/who is the sole accused-appellant of Cr. Appeal 385 of 1980 which is so made under Section 302, IPC for his intentionally causing the death of Kamli Devi and after being convicted therein being also sentenced to undergo RI for life, the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed against him does not require any interference. Since the learned Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on the record and since Criminal Appeal 385 of 1980 has no leg to stand, the same stands dismissed. The accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh it transpires being bailed out on the date when his this Criminal Appeal was so admitted on 14.8.1986. Since the learned Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on the record and since Criminal Appeal 385 of 1980 has no leg to stand, the same stands dismissed. The accused-appellant Paras Singh alias Paras Nath Singh it transpires being bailed out on the date when his this Criminal Appeal was so admitted on 14.8.1986. Because of the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed against him stands affirmed and the Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 385 of 1980 stands dismissed his bail-bond is cancelled and he is directed as to surrender forthwith as to meet the sentence. His conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act imposing sentence of two years also stands confirmed. The sentences so imposed being confirmed are directed to run concurrently. 12. As regards the accused-appellants of Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 329 of 1986, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh (Mahton) and Ram Niwash Singh, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also after re-evaluating the evidence oral and documentary available on the record, their conviction so held by the learned Court below under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC also under Section 27 of the Arms Act do not require any interference under Section 302/149, IPC they are sentenced to undergo RI for life and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, they are sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a direction that the sentences so imposed would run concurrently, the same stand affirmed. As regards the accused- appellants Fagulal Singh and Bindeshwar Singh convicted under Section 307, IPC and the rest except Paras Singh convicted under Section 307/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each, the judgment of conviction under Sections 307 & 307/149, IPC and sentences so imposed, in the background of the facts and circumstances, and the evidence so available on the record require interference, as detailed while discussing the evidence. Taking that view, the conviction of the accused- appellants of Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 329 of 1986 under Sections 307, 307/149, IPC with the sentences so imposed stand set-aside. They are rather convicted under Section 324/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years; meaning thereby, that in Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 329 of 1986 the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 302/149, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment so imposed by the learned Court below stand affirmed. They are rather convicted under Section 324/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years; meaning thereby, that in Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 329 of 1986 the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 302/149, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment so imposed by the learned Court below stand affirmed. Their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentence so imposed as to undergo RI for two years stand affirmed. The conviction so passed against them under Sections 307 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC and sentence so imposed as to undergo RI for seven years, stands set-aside, instead being convicted under Section 307 or 307 read with Section 149, IPC they stand convicted under Section 324/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years. Modification only to this extent is so made relating to their conviction under Sections 307 and 307/149, IPC. With the above modifications so made, as detailed above, finding no merit in Criminal Appeal Bearing No. 329 of 1986 the same also stands dismissed. All the sentences so imposed are directed to run concurrently. 13. Since accused-appellants, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh (Manton) and Ram Niwash Singh being given the privilege of bail so granted on 15.6.1986 during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal so preferred, because of the criminal appeals so preferred by them being dismissed with certain modifications, as detailed above, their bail-bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith as to meet the sentences so imposed under different heads. Both the Criminal Appeals, thus, stand disposed of, accordingly.